Celivia,
Thanks for your comment.
Yes, in a way we never 'disprove' the theory of evolution because it is only a theory. All that happens is the theory is constantly updated, adjusted.
Unfortunately evolution science is full of subjectivity and opinions. Inevitably, scientists have to base their assumptions on previous scientists findings (that are themselves subjective). This is because no one has the time and resource to research everything from scratch. Not to "re-invent the wheel", so to speak. Consequently, errors can often be cumulative and it is quite conceivable a piece of bone may erroneously lead to a drawing of some ancient monsters, (by an artist of course).

I'm saying evolutionary science cannot be trusted. This is not the fault of science but mostly fault of scientists themselves. They do have to draw conclusions to show some results, from time to time.

But the big question is not evolution or the lack of it. It is whether life can naturally come from non-life. I categorically claim that evolution of life is false, unless it is proven life can naturally occurs from non-life. This may be a simple true/false question but is the MOST critical one.

There is no known scientific process, chemical or physical, natural or artificial that can create life. I'm sure science will never get there.

I have my own opinion about creationism. But not prepared to discuss at this point.

Vanilla,
If even *one* piece of evidence was proved to contradict a THEOREM/LAW, then the whole THEOREM/LAW would have to be abandoned. This does not apply to theory. A theory is not something that is proven to be true.

Cheers...

Dickie,

No I don’t believe Christians can ignore that. That doesn’t mean we will ever treat scientific theory as dogmatic but we need to seriously consider such expert opinion.

Bugsy,

Whether my categorical error is sophistry or affirms my comment below will remain a matter of opinion:

“But people inadvertently make invalid analogies all the time. If you stop chanting sophistry and have a go at a genuine critique you never know your luck.”

As regards astronomy my understanding is that it didn’t pre-exist Christianity. If astrology is defined as astronomy or Sumerian’s considered scientists then yes but that is not consistent with my understanding of these things.

The longstanding foundations you refer to in your next post I consider an argument in favour of the influence of Christianity rather than undermining it’s responsibility and I don’t share your convergence/coincidence theory.

A J Phillips

Can I take it you agree with Dawkin’s cat analogy?

Cevilia,

“I’m not sure why it matters whether or not science developed before or parallel with Christianity or even by Christians. ...”

Yes science and religion do tend to consider different things. Yes I wouldn’t expect someone to convert solely because of science and have been surprised by the strong reaction. Without seeing completely eye to eye I generally relate to what you are saying and find it refreshing. In the context of my personal beliefs I pointed out that Christian thought correlates with scientific thought and this in conjunction with the time, place, and lengthy period of being on the verge of science supports the view that Christianity gave birth to science. Science has been enormously successful and beneficial. Since I believe correlation between the birth of science and Christianity can be attributed to Christian belief I feel more comfortable with my chosen belief system and am happy with the positive contribution. If science had failed or been useless that wouldn’t be an option.

mjpb, I can see that you believe that Christianity has shaped the development of science. We differ quite radically on this: it is the other way around. For over 1000 years of Christianity didn't change that much, but after influential developments in scientific thinking and rationality, backed up by objective data, Christian thought itself began to change. It had to. To then project back the idea that the religion can take credit for these developments and thus validate itself is ridiculous.

Vanilla,
I once came across an intriguing article about abiogenesis which, unfortunately, I haven’t kept; but from memory, the author discussed how difficult it is to actually determine the essential differences between life and non-life. The line isn’t always clear when we consider living things that barely fit the definition of life and non-living things that almost appear alive.
There was a checklist of characteristics of life e.g. growth, nutrition, metabolism but even then it is sometimes unclear where to draw the line.

Mjpb,
I agree with Bugsy’s point but I suppose I’ll accept your choice about your belief. I have limited knowledge of the history of Christianity or of science so it’s possible that I’m missing something that you’re trying to convey, but I still fail to see how, or why, it’s relevant that there is a correlation between Christianity and science- not only because correlation doesn’t mean causation but, as I said, even if Christianity gave birth to science this doesn’t implicate that God exist. At least, not for me.
I’m getting ‘something’ across of what you’ve been saying and I have the feeling that you’re merely trying to explain what your personal view is and how it contributes to your level of happiness without a strong need to convince others that your view is the best, the correct one etc. Correct me if I’m wrong.

PS I’ll be a bit slow in replying due to my frustration with my reduced typing speed and limited time atm.

Celivia,

Yes to alot of that. Obviously you are not a Christian and have different outlooks and biases but you seem to 'get it'. As a bonus you aren't taking my comments as a personal attack and don't feel the need to insult me.

I wouldn't convert merely on that basis (as a hypothetical) if I was you either. Which leads to something very close to yes in response to the balance of your questions. It is my personal view and does contribute to my level of happiness and it doesn't really change alot whether or not people consider it the better view. Asked whether I believe in Christianity and why, I threw that in after answering the two questions.

To be honest I expected the general commencement period of science (defined in what I believe is the most typical manner) would be uncontroversial. Why science commenced is a real post mortem job which I have an opinion on and can cite reasons which I'd like people to understand but I don't take for granted a shared interpretation. However the discussion got stuck unduly on Sumerian scientists. I think I'm getting to that point of fully explaining my post mortem but only because I'm communicating with different people.

When I give reasons for the view in the historical context and someone agrees with me on a definition for science (and makes negative attributions about me for defining it in the first place) but then says that something not within the definition is science I feel the need to pin down what they mean. I even had someone claim that someone from European Christendom was the father of science but in the same post claimed Sumerians were scientists. Requests to find out if they subscribed to a different definition of science (which they are entitled to) were never answered.

Take your time responding I have enjoyed the communication breakthrough too much to be impatient.

Bugsy,

Then hopefully I’m not doing that. Whether or not Christian thought was affected by science I think it is more than coincidence that science took off where and when it did. I believe that existing attributes of Christianity add weight to this lack of coincidence theory particularly when contrasted with beliefs of other cultures with the knowledge and capabilities to get science off the ground. I don’t believe projecting backward is necessary.

I'd like to address your 1000 plus years of inaction suggestion. At the beginning of the 1000 years Christian Europe was a combination of barbarism and the rubble of Roman outposts. I’m presuming that Christian Europe built on Greek knowledge. Did Europe mull over Greek knowledge for over a thousand years or is it more historically valid to consider that the peoples discovered it in medieval times after it was translated into Latin? I invite you to do your own historical research but I don’t believe Greek knowledge which later invigorated them was widely available during that time. Without the Greek knowledge Christian Europe seemed to have focused their reasoning on theological issues. With the benefit of Greek knowledge and turning thoughts to the natural world science seemed to take off fairly quickly. I share the view of co-author of Principia Mathematica Alfred Whitehead who noted that science arose in Europe because of the "faith in the possibility of science...derivative from medieval theology."

Certainly, they didn’t go it alone. Without the platform provided by the Greeks it might not have happened or might have taken much longer. However other groups had that advantage but didn’t get science off the ground. The question does need to be asked why Christian society did it but they didn’t?